or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple sued for promoting iPhone as eBook reader
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple sued for promoting iPhone as eBook reader - Page 2

post #41 of 85
Unfortunately, "obvious" when applied to patents has a very technical meaning, it doesn't follow that something you or I think of as obvious would count as such. It means obvious to a robot or automaton that knows every published technical and scientific paper in the field and can apply an infinite number of small steps that have been written down before. Any step which wasn't written down involves original thought and is therefore patentable. Apparently.

The thing that really gets me about patents is that too often, they're not patenting an actual invention but are patenting the concept of trying to do something, ie. they're patenting the problem, not the solution.
post #42 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai1999 View Post

As others have said, this falls over at claim 1
- the iPhone doesn't have a book-sized screen

(which the 'inventors' think is important to the 'invention', or they wouldn't mention it in claim 1)

The article does not mention a "book-sized screen".
As quoted from the patent - "approximately one page of a book can be illustrated at normal size".

What is "normal size"? Compare a paperback to its hardback version, which is maybe twice the size?
And since an e-book may not have ever been published as a hard copy, how can the normal size be determined.

The last line in the 1st paragraph of the patent - "and in this case has a relatively large display" - to me, would rule out the iPhone as it definitiely is not a "relatively large screen" at half the size of an A format paperback.
post #43 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

No LCD screen, they use e-paper.

E-paper can technically be an LCD, or Liquid Crystal Display. The ones used for e-paper are referred to as Zero-power LCDs, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know if the Kindle uses this category of LCD or not. Regardless, I think this patent is bogus as stated.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #44 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

The article does not mention a "book-sized screen".
As quoted from the patent - "approximately one page of a book can be illustrated at normal size".

[...]

That is a good point.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #45 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

You know that Alexander Graham Bell bribed the patent examined to get his patent application processed before Elisha Gray patent, which was submitted the earlier the same day! There was even testimonies that Graham Bell looked at Gray's patent application before he submitted his.

Would that help, even if it were true? The US patent system is "first to invent," not "first to file" like everywhere else in the world. Even if Bell got his application in first, if Gray could prove that his work predated Bell's, he could have had Bell's patent invalidated.
post #46 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Would that help, even if it were true? The US patent system is "first to invent," not "first to file" like everywhere else in the world. Even if Bell got his application in first, if Gray could prove that his work predated Bell's, he could have had Bell's patent invalidated.

Unfortunately from what we are seeing now it is about "first to file". I brought that story up to show how the patent system could be manipulated. It doesn't matter whether you have a working product or not and the only way to invalidate a patent is through the courts.
post #47 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That is a good point.

eh?
From claim 1 of the patent:
"said display has dimensions such that one page of a book can be displayed at a normal size"
- this implies a book-sized screen, right?

Anyway, as I said, the iPhone doesn't have a book-sized screen, so Claim 1 doesn't apply...
post #48 of 85
Hello, McFly!!!!!! Kindle?

Why is it that these lawsuits always target Apple and ignore all the other potential violators?

Also, where is their ebook reader? According to patent law, you have 5 years to produce something to support your patent.
post #49 of 85
Anyone that has seen star trek knows this doesn't pass the prior art criteria.
post #50 of 85
Well, even if it turns out that the patent does not affect the iPhone, because of the
size, it might be important for Apple to resolve this, if they ever expect to produce
a tablet or larger iPod touch device.
post #51 of 85
Since the discussion has moved onto a debate about inventors at each other, I recommend reading up on Thomas Edison v. Nikola Tesla. I find the story very intriguing and have to side with the real inventor Tesla over the business man Edison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents The history is very rich. As children in the US we are taught that Edison created the first light bulb, when in reality this was not true. He created the first commercially practical incandescent light bulb. But even this may not technically be his invention, only an invention of his company as he hired many inventors to invent items at break neck speeds.

Then there is the issue with the modern light bulb, which we get from Tesla. As i remember it, Tesla was commissioned to provide electric lighting to London, but since he was using the much better long-distance option of AC over Edision's push for DC, Edision refused to license the light bulb to the city. So Telsa had to invent a different light bulb that did not step on Edison's patents. The result was a much easier to use, modern, screw in light bulb that was cheaper to produce.

(That could all be wrong as I've found that much of the history I thought I knew was complete bullocks)
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #52 of 85
What's next? A lawsuit because Apple produces a portable device capable of playing music and has a logo that resembles an Apple.... oh wait, nevermind.

Not sure if anyone ever meant to suggest that Apple Computer has never been on the other side of patent cases - including some in which they may not have had a preponderance of clear evidence in their favor. What seems odd is that Apple seems to be number one on the hit list for having such patents filed against them. Is that because they are so visible a target? is it because they are so cutting edge that they are the first to produce products which are likely to trigger such claims? Could it be the company is just a clear and easy target with deep pockets? Or could it be in part that the media is more prone to pick up on stories involving Apple because it makes good press?
post #53 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai1999 View Post

eh?
From claim 1 of the patent:
"said display has dimensions such that one page of a book can be displayed at a normal size"
- this implies a book-sized screen, right?

Anyway, as I said, the iPhone doesn't have a book-sized screen, so Claim 1 doesn't apply...

That is why I thought it was a good point, since the iPhone/Touch doesn't have a normal size screen and therefore cannot display a single book page in normal size.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #54 of 85
If they were going to sue anyone they should have sued MS years ago. MS distributed MS Reader that worked on Pocket PCs/Windows Mobile devices which is NO different than Apple and the iPhone etc.

Or they could have sued eReader (Peanut Press) or MobiPocket, or any of a bunch of others that disctributed software that allows eBook reading on a touch-screen device.

No matter how you slice it up, it ends up coming off as nothing but a PR stunt - if it was otherwise, they would have raised suit long before now agains a lot of different companies.
post #55 of 85
This is a prime example of the foolishness that has become of the once-proud american patent system. YOU CAN'T PATENT an IDEA, just a METHOD. Putting print on a small screen isn't an original idea. (By the way, yesterday I was in a waiting room and read an entire chapter of "Dreams from My Father." Dude can write.)

I think that the Rubicon was passed when we lost our manufacturing cababilities overseas, and thus, American business has become a hollow shell. A certain engine, a certain vacuum tube, or the cotton gin, were patentable. You'd make one of your own, and license other versions. You couldn't obviously patent the idea of a vacuum tube, just the one you made that did x through a new method nobody else had. And then you could only patent that for a short while. When the finance boys take over the economy, all these common-sense practicalities become mystified.

Oh, by the way, I invented the forum response on websites, so you guys all owe me .15 apiece.
post #56 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai1999 View Post

eh?
From claim 1 of the patent:
"said display has dimensions such that one page of a book can be displayed at a normal size"
- this implies a book-sized screen, right?

Sort of.
What size is "book-sized"?
Is there a specification for the physical size of an e-book? Doubtful since an e-book is a bunch of electrons and not a physical product. Besides, a single page could be displayed on an iPhone or a 60" plasma.

I have a dictionary here that is 13" x 9". I also have some books at home that are about the size of an iPhone.

Quote:
Anyway, as I said, the iPhone doesn't have a book-sized screen, so Claim 1 doesn't apply...

Looking at the patent though, they spell it out...

"4. An electronic device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said housing has external dimensions of between 12.times.18 cm and 24.times.32 cm and a height of approximately 1 to 3 cm."

The iPhone is 11.5 cm x 6.2 cm x 1.2 cm so it's a lot smaller than they describe, so you are correct, claim 1 would not apply.
post #57 of 85
I live in Switzerland and have NEVER heard of these patent squatters...in fact, the patent itself is stupidly absurd...another "gift" from the moronic yet selfish US patent system, which started this whole crap about software patents in the first place, not to mention the favorable consideration of more than obvious claims...go figure.
iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.9.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.
Reply
iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.9.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.
Reply
post #58 of 85
Check out Monec's impressive website to get an idea of the breadth of their business:
http://www.monec.com/
post #59 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryn View Post

They can't sue the Kindle as it is not a "touch screen" device, whereas the iPhone/iPod Touch is.

Its all about money.
post #60 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubert View Post

Hello, McFly!!!!!! Kindle?

Why is it that these lawsuits always target Apple and ignore all the other potential violators?

I can think of twenty-five billion reasons.
post #61 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

In US law at least, this description:
Would seem to fail the "non obvious" clause as well as being far too generalized of a description.

It also doesn't describe the iPhone as you cannot describe a 2x3 screen as displaying "one page of a book ... at normal size."

Normal size..... what the hell's normal...books come in a bunch of sizes.
Apple should just change their verbiage to say ... acceptial size.
post #62 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by cferry View Post

Check out Monec's impressive website to get an idea of the breadth of their business:
http://www.monec.com/

.... and their product is....... ??? I want to see the research and development
on their software.....
post #63 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by cferry View Post

Check out Monec's impressive website to get an idea of the breadth of their business:
http://www.monec.com/

.... and their product is....... ??? I want to see the research and development
on their software.....
post #64 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Fred 1 View Post

Normal size..... what the hell's normal...books come in a bunch of sizes.
Apple should just change their verbiage to say ... acceptial size.

Normal is something that is average or typical. I don't think there is any valid argument to state that a 3.5" 16:9 ratio is in any way 'normal' for reading a book.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #65 of 85
We should follow Thomas Jefferson's philosophy and throw out all patents, period. You still have copyright and trademark protections, and the best product wins. Patents don't protect anything that deserves to be protected.
post #66 of 85
xxxxx
post #67 of 85
Honestly I wish copyright was more like patent, in at least one respect anyway. Patents last 20 years. Copyright protections can last over 100.
post #68 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guartho View Post

Honestly I wish copyright was more like patent, in at least one respect anyway. Patents last 20 years. Copyright protections can last over 100.

So if you were to write a book or a song, you would want to stop collecting royalties after only 20 years?
post #69 of 85
These absurd patent suits raise the price of products. Don't think that the cost of Apple's defense of all these mostly ridiculous lawsuits isn't factored into product prices. And when Apple (or any corporation) is sued outside of their own state, they usually have to hire outside counsel. That's very expensive.
post #70 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

These absurd patent suits raise the price of products. Don't think that the cost of Apple's defense of all these mostly ridiculous lawsuits isn't factored into product prices. And when Apple (or any corporation) is sued outside of their own state, they usually have to hire outside counsel. That's very expensive.

Yes, at least five Macbook Pros. Baseless patent suits are not expensive to have dismissed.
post #71 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

So if you were to write a book or a song, you would want to stop collecting royalties after only 20 years?

Perhaps 50 is more reasonable. No point in having them last 100+ years though. If you were born today and somehow wrote a book, you'd likely be dead long before the copyright expired.
post #72 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

So if you were to write a book or a song, you would want to stop collecting royalties after only 20 years?

The original concept of copyrights was exactly that - that after collecting for a decent period, the work would fall into the public domain. It was never felt that decendents should benefit financially from a work after the author's death and that even the author should only benefit for a certain time. Why should copyrights be treated differently than patents?

Congress has seen fit to keep extending the copyright time period so that now, for works first published in the U.S. after 2002, it's life of the author + 70 years for works created by individuals and 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first, for works that have corporate authorship. One of the reasons the last extension took place was because of lobbying by Disney because they claimed Mickey Mouse was going to fall into the public domain. Actually, that wasn't true - only the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, Steamboat Willie, was going to fall into the public domain. It's questionable whether if Steamboat Willie fell into the public domain whether that meant that others could create Mickey Mouse cartoons.

One can argue the benefits or disadvantages of this both ways. On one hand, life expectancy has increased, so the 20 years was probably too short by modern standards. Also, the original intention was to increase distribution of the work by placing it in the public domain, but sometimes the opposite happens: since anyone can then publish the work, a given publisher may choose not to publish the work because if it's popular, another publisher can come in and grab the market. As just one small example, the early works of Edgar Rice Burroughs are now in the public domain, but there's only one or two publishers who bother to publish these classics, because if any were to become popular (let's say if there was a new Tarzan movie or TV series), another publisher could jump in and publish the same title and take away the market. This happened in the 1960's when Ballantine published "authorized" versions of Burroughs' works and Ace paperbacks published competing editions of anything that had fallen into the public domain.

It seems to me that perhaps the author (and his/her estate) deserves a long copyright term if they're exploiting the asset and doesn't if they're not. So if a book hasn't been published in X years after the initial copyright period has elapsed, perhaps that work SHOULD fall into the public domain so someone else can exploit it.
post #73 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by milkmage View Post

...not defending anoyone, but that license could have nothing to do with one click. it might have to do with audible content in iTMS. amazon owns audible, no?

The license reference in iTunes specifically says 1-Click is a registered service mark of Amazon. Audible is listed as a separate license. They should sue Amazon too because they also promote the iPhone as a kindle-compatible eBook reader. I don't see any licensing listing on Amazon's site regarding the Kindle using this alleged patent.

As I further read in the other posts....apparently the alleged big deal is their claim of a touch-screen device, which rules out the Kindle. Give me a break. If they thought of this genius idea 7 years ago, where is their product to utilize it? The price of the Kindle is way too expensive. I would rather buy the paperback and enjoy reading the way it should be. I enjoy manually turning the page.
post #74 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Unfortunately from what we are seeing now it is about "first to file". I brought that story up to show how the patent system could be manipulated. It doesn't matter whether you have a working product or not and the only way to invalidate a patent is through the courts.

Uh, no. The US patent system has always been "first to invent" and remains the only country to have such a system. The only effect the filing date has is on when your patent protection actually starts. Somebody who files later can still get your patent thrown out if he has records that prove he invented the same thing first. And the courts are not the only way to challenge a patent. You can ask USPTO for re-examination of a patent that's been granted. Nobody said anything about the presence or absence of a working prototype, so I don't know why you brought that up. That's never been required under US patent law.
post #75 of 85
I wonder if I can patent a fart then every time Steve Jobs breaks wind I could sue apple for intellectual property rights?
post #76 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Congress has seen fit to keep extending the copyright time period so that now, for works first published in the U.S. after 2002, it's life of the author + 70 years for works created by individuals and 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first, for works that have corporate authorship. One of the reasons the last extension took place was because of lobbying by Disney because they claimed Mickey Mouse was going to fall into the public domain. Actually, that wasn't true - only the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, Steamboat Willie, was going to fall into the public domain. It's questionable whether if Steamboat Willie fell into the public domain whether that meant that others could create Mickey Mouse cartoons.


Actually, if "Steamboat Willie" became public domain, this still won't give anyone the right to use the "Mickey Mouse" character as Disney has a "Trademark" on "Mickey Mouse" (and all of it's cartoon charactors). And a trademark can last forever, if it's still being used it to market a good or service.

The only thing that would have happen, if "Steamboat Willie" became public domain, is that anyone can use that original work without having to get a license from Disney. Even if Matt Groening wants to digitize Homer Simpson into the work. Which may not be a bad thing.
post #77 of 85
xxxxx
post #78 of 85
take this poll: (linkback) Fair or Foul? Apple sued for promoting iPhone as eBook reader [VOTE] - http://www.pikk.com/fb053
post #79 of 85
Newton?

Apple had Newton eBook Software clear back in the 90's
post #80 of 85
I've decided to sue every poster on this thread for publishing my thoughts which I had before they posted their thoughts.

That would be stupid. So is the eBook reader patent infringement case.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple sued for promoting iPhone as eBook reader